DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4-21, & 24-41 are currently pending on the application of which claims 1, 21, & 40 are amended, claim 41 is newly added, and claims 2-3 & 22-23 are cancelled.
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous art rejection is withdrawn in favor of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 21, & 40 have been considered but are moot in light of the new references utilized to meet the new limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-21, & 24-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 21, & 40 recites the limitation "the at least one material" in the phrase “enhanced reactivity with the at least one material applied to the at least one wafer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if applicant is referring to the at least one photolytic material supplied to the surface of wafer or a different material. Based on the disclosure, it appears applicant means to refer to a different material than the photolytic material. For examination purposes, the limitation will be understood as “at least one material”.
The remaining claims are rejected for their dependence on a previously recited claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 21, & 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (US20200009621A1).
As to claim 1, Han discloses a light-enhanced wafer processing system comprising: a processing body (ref 1200) having a rotatable chuck (ref 1320) configured to support and selectively rotate at least one wafer [0061 & 0068]; a processing head (ref 1400) in communication with a source of photolytic material (ref 1452), the processing head configured to selectively flow the photolytic material onto a surface of the wafer (e.g., see Fig.9); an optical radiation source (ref 1460) configured to provide optical radiation to at least a portion of the wafer having the photolytic material applied thereto, the optical radiation configured to result in formation of optically-induced radicals having enhanced reactivity (abstract & [0075]) with a material on the wafer, wherein the processing head is movable in relation to the rotatable chuck (see Figs.5 & 9 also [0071 & 0083]) such that the processing head is selectively positioned proximate to the wafer and selectively retract vertically and distally from the wafer (see Figs.5 & 9 in conjunction with [0071] indicating raised and lowered).
As to claim 21, Han discloses a light-enhanced wafer processing system comprising: a processing body (ref 1200) having a rotatable chuck (ref 1320) configured to support and selectively rotate at least one wafer [0061 & 0068]; a processing head (ref 1400) having a dispenser body (ref 1410) in communication with a source of photolytic material (ref 1452), the dispenser body configured to selectively flow the photolytic material onto a surface of the wafer (e.g., see Fig.9); an optical radiation source (ref 1460) configured to provide optical radiation to at least a portion of the wafer having the photolytic material applied thereto, the optical radiation configured to result in formation of optically-induced radicals having enhanced reactivity (abstract & [0075]) with a material on the wafer, wherein the processing head is movable in relation to the rotatable chuck (see Figs.5 & 9 also [0071 & 0083]) such that the processing head is selectively positioned proximate to the wafer and selectively retract vertically and distally from the wafer (see Figs.5 & 9 in conjunction with [0071] indicating raised and lowered).
As to claim 40, Han discloses a light-enhanced wafer processing system comprising: a rotatable chuck (ref 1320) configured to support and selectively rotate at least one wafer [0061 & 0068]; a dispenser body (ref 1400 including ref 1410) configured to selectively flow the photolytic material (e.g., material from ref 1450) onto a surface of the wafer (e.g., see Fig.9); an optical radiation source (ref 1460) coupled to the dispenser body, the optical radiation source configured to provide optical radiation to at least a portion of the wafer having the photolytic material applied thereto, the optical radiation configured to result in formation of optically-induced radicals having enhanced reactivity (abstract & [0075]) with a material on the wafer, wherein the dispenser body and the optical radiation source are selectively positioned proximate to the wafer and selectively retract vertically and distally from the wafer (see Figs.5 & 9 in conjunction with [0071] indicating raised and lowered also [0083] stating swing together).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 & 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Funabashi (WO2020153168A1).
As to claims 4 & 26, Han teaches the system of claim 1 & 21, but does not disclose the flow of material being turbulent. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Funabashi.
Funabashi discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus utilizing a photolytic material (abstract), wherein turbulent fluid at the substrate increases the amount ozone reaching the substrate and improves removal rate of a resist film [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han provide the material with a turbulent flow in order to improve the removal rate of a resist film (Funabashi [0044]). A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Nelson (US20030042631A1) and Kim (KR100621788B1).
As to claim 5, Han teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the flow of material being laminar. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Nelson and Kim.
Kim discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract), wherein the use of laminar flow improves uniformity of wafer processing as well as accuracy and precision (lines 457-486 & 526-532)
Nelson discloses a manner of dissolving ozone gas into a liquid (abstract) for the treatment of wafers [0003-0004] wherein it is disclosed that flow of the fluid should be provided under laminar conditions in order to diffuse more easily and maximize the amount of ozone in the fluid [0056 & 0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to create laminar flow of the photolytic material onto the surface of the wafer in order to maximize the amount of ozone in the fluid and allow for better diffusion (Nelson [0056 & 0060]) while also improving uniformity, precision and accuracy (Kim lines 457-486 & 526-532).
Claim(s) 6 & 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Kwon (US20200075355A1).
As to claims 6 and 27, Han teaches the system of claims 1 & 21, wherein the photolytic material comprises ozonated deionized water [0022 & 0029]. Assuming arguendo that Han does not explicitly indicate that the ozone is utilized with deionized water, such a feature is also well-known in the art, as seen Kwon.
Kwon discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein ozonated deionized water is known to be utilized for the removal of a resist and organic residue on the substrate [0088 & 0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize ozonated deionized water for the removal of the resist, as such is known in the art (Kwon [0088 & 0093]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known type of water for and ozone solution when one is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim(s) 7 & 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Kwon (US20200075355A1) as applied to claims 6 and 27 above, and further in view of Tai (US20040040934A1) and Shimizu (US6559064B1).
As to claims 7 and 28, Modified Han teaches the system of claims 6 and 27, but does not disclose the concentration of the ozonated deionized water. However, such a concentration is well-known in the art for resist removal as seen by Tai and Shimizu. A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]).
Tai discloses an art related substrate processing method (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize ozonated DI water with a concentration of 60-115 ppm in order to remove a photoresist [0025].
Shimizu discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that an ozonated water concentration is 100 ppm for the removal of a photoresist (Col.5 lines 35-45 Col.6 lines 20-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize ozonated deionized water with a concentration between the range of 60 and 115 ppm, as such is known in the art for the removal of a resist (Tai [0025] & Shimizu (Col.5 lines 35-45 Col.6 lines 20-30). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known concentration of ozonated deionized water for the removal of a resist when one is not explicitly disclosed. It is further noted that the photolytic material is not positively recited. Thus, limitations drawn to the photolytic material are also not positively recited.
Claim(s) 8-10 & 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Takahashi (US20170125240A1), Kuzomoto (US6616773B1), and Funabashi (WO2020153168A1).
As to claims 8-10 and 29-31, Han teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, but does not disclose use of ozone gas explicitly. However, use of ozone gas for resist removal operations is known in the art, as seen by Takahashi , Kuzomoto, and Funabashi.
Takahashi discloses an art related substrate processing method for the removal of a resist (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that ozone gas with a concentration of 350g/m3 or 30 g/m3 is utilized to effectively remove a resist from a wafer [0045 & 0055]. Accordingly, Takahashi indicates the usage of a combined ultrapure water (i.e., deionized) and ozone gas. A skilled artisan understands that the ozone presence within the water would also form at least a small amount of ozonated deionized water. Takahashi also suggests that utilizing the known concentration of ozone gas for the removal of a resist allows for the removal of a difficult to remove resist under mild conditions (abstract & [0006]).
Kuzomoto discloses an art related substrate processing method for the removal of a resist (abstract & Col.1 lines 5-10), wherein it is known to utilize wet ozone gas having a concentration of 170 or 200 g/m3 in order to remove a photoresist (Col.10 lines 55-65, Col.12 lines 1-25 line 60 to Col.13 line 25 & Col.14 lines 50-65). The wet ozone gas is produced using ultrapure water (Col.2 lines 15-20, ultrapure water is understood to be deionized). Thus, the usage of wet ozone gas also provides at least some amount (even if infinitesimally small) of ozonated water.
Funabashi discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus utilizing a photolytic material (abstract), wherein the use of two phase gas liquid ozone gas and ozone water us utilized to gradually remove the resist allow for a high removal rate [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize ozone gas in combination with the ozone water for improved resist removal rate (Funabashi [0044]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to utilize ozone gas concentrations known for success with resist removal, including 30, 170, 200, or 350 g/m3 as is known in the art (Takahashi [0045 & 0055] also Kuzomoto Col.10 lines 55-65, Col.12 lines 1-25 line 60 to Col.13 line 25 & Col.14 lines 50-65). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known ozone concentration when one is not explicitly disclosed. A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is further noted that the photolytic material is not positively recited. Thus, limitations drawn to the photolytic material are also not positively recited.
Claim(s) 11-12 & 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Rahmathullah (US20210106935A1), Nishiguchi (US20050191864A1), and Chang (US20160129484A1).
As to claims 11-12 & 32, Han teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein the UV range can be from 185-254 nm [0076], thereby including the range from 250-275 nm. Assuming arguendo that the range disclosed by Han is not sufficiently close to 250-275nm, such ranges for ultraviolet radiation is known in the art as seen by Rahmathullah, Nishiguchi, and Chang.
Rahmathullah discloses manner of treating substrates utilizing UV radiation (abstract), wherein the range of UV wavelength for form radicals is 210-280 nm, such as 254 nm [0157 0169].
Nishiguchi discloses an art related ozone treatment usable for semiconductor photoresists [0002], wherein UV radiation in the range of 200-300 nm produces radicals [0082-0083], and optimally in the range of 250 nm [0104].
Chang discloses an art related semiconductor resist removing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize UV radiation in the range of 245-260 nm in order to remove a resist layer [0023 & 0041-0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize UV radiation in a range from 200-300 nm, and more specifically in the vicinity of 250 nm, such as 254nm in order to produce radicals for the removal of a wafer resist (Rahmathullah [0157 & 0169], Nishiguchi [0082-0083 & 0104], and Chang [0023 & 0041-0042]). A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known UV radiation range in place of another when alternative range is known for success in producing desired radicals for resist removal.
Claim(s) 13-14 & 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Elliott (US20110061679A1).
As to claims 13-14 & 33, Han teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, but does not disclose the power of the ultraviolet radiation source. However, the use of a 10 watt radiation source which can operate in the UV range is known in the art, as seen by Elliott.
Elliot discloses an art related method for removing resists from wafers (abstract), wherein it is known that a laser which can operate in the range of 150-580nm (includes UV radiation) can be a 10 watt solid state laser [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize a 10W laser which can operate in the UV range as it is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known radiation source in place of another when both sources are capable of producing UV radiation.
Claim(s) 15 & 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Zhang (US20150158116A1) and Chaplick (US20070224768A1).
As to claims 15 & 34, Han teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein a UV radiation source is utilized (abstract) but does not disclose the UV source being a DPSS laser operating at between 250-275nm. However, the use of a DPSS laser for providing UV radiation is known in the art, as seen by Zhang and Chaplick.
Zhang discloses an art related apparatus for processing a substrate (abstract & [0008-0011], wherein a diode pumped solid state laser operating at 6 watts can produce a wavelength of 266 nm [0086-0087].
Chaplick discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract & [0002]), wherein a solid state diode pumped laser is utilized to remove a resist by utilizing a wavelength 266nm [0034 & 0085] in conjunction with ozone [0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize a 266 nm DPSS laser for the removal of the resist, as such a radiation source is known in the art (Chaplick 0034 & 0085] & Zhang [0086-0087]). A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of ultraviolet radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 16-17, 35-36, & 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Yonetani (JP2004342886A).
As to claims 16-17 & 35-36, Han teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein a UV radiation source is utilized (abstract) but does not disclose the UV source being a laser diode or LED operating at between 250-275nm. However, the use of laser diodes and LEDs for UV radiation is known in the art, as seen by Yonetani.
Yonetani discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein wavelength of 254 nm promote radical produce from ozone [0075-0076]. Yonetani further indicates that known UV radiation sources for producing such a wavelength include a semiconductor laser (i.e., laser diode) or an LED among other options [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize a 254 nm semiconductor laser or LED for improved removal of the resist (Yonetani [0075-0076]). A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of ultraviolet radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 18 & 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Moffatt (US20140263180A1) and Chaplick (US20070224768A1).
As to claims 18 & 37, Han teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein a UV radiation source is utilized (abstract) but does not disclose the UV source being a fiber laser operating at between 250-275nm. However, the use of a fiber laser for UV radiation is known in the art, as seen by Moffat and Chaplick.
Moffat discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that UV radiation may be provided at 266 nm [0019] utilizing radiation sources, such as fiber lasers, solid state laser, laser diodes among others [0017]. Moffat also indicates that fiber lasers are advantageous for their improved brightness [0018].
Chaplick discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract & [0002]), wherein a solid state diode pumped laser is utilized to remove a resist by utilizing a wavelength 266nm [0034 & 0085] in conjunction with ozone [0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to utilize a 266 nm fiber laser for the UV radiation source to remove the resist as it is a known UV radiation source in the art and would provide improved brightness (Moffat [0018]). Since DPSS lasers are known to be utilized with ozone, and fiber lasers a known alternative to a DPSS laser, a skilled artisan would also find the use of fiber laser to be an obvious variant of a UV radiation source. A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of ultraviolet radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Elliott (US20110061679A1), Chaplick (US20070224768A1), and Terada (US20040197433A1).
As to claim 19, Han teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the moveable processing head having the radiation source can read on a scan head. However, assuming arguendo that a scan head and the processing head are distinct and separate elements, the following alternative rejection is provided. Although Han does not disclose the presence of a scan head, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that such a feature is merely an alternative configuration when compared to the configuration of Han where the radiation source is provided on the dispenser assembly, as seen by Elliott, Chaplick, and Terada.
Elliot discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it can be seen that a scan head (Fig.7 ref 715) can be utilized in order to provide radiation to a wafer [0084-0085] for the removal of a resist (abstract).
Chaplick discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract & [0002]), wherein a scan head can be utilized in order to supply radiation to a wafer surface [0091-0093] in order to remove a resist [0085].
Terada discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus for removing a film (abstract), wherein it is shown that a dispenser body (Fig.6 ref 85) can be separate from a radiation source (Fig.5 ref 63) for supplying radiation to a wafer to remove a resist [0004 & 01320]. Thus, Terada showcases that an alternative form for a dispensing assembly for the removal of a film on a wafer can be provided with a radiation source disposed separately from the dispensing assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to provide the radiation source as a separate scan head, as such a feature is known in the art (Elliott Fig.7, Chaplick Fig.7A, and Terada Figs.5-6) for the supplying of radiation to a wafer surface. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would recognize the provision of a scan head to be a mere alternative to the providing of a radiation source and dispenser on the same head. A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known structural configuration for a dispensing assembly utilized in film removal of a substrate in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1).
As to claims 20 & 39, Han teaches the system of claims 1 & 21 respectively, wherein the photolytic material is not positively recited. Thus, limitations drawn to the photolytic material are also not positively recited. Further, a skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Terada (US20040197433A1).
As to claim 24, Han teaches the system of claim 21, but does not disclose the presence of a body receiver through which optical radiation propagates. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Terada.
Terada discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus for removing a film (abstract), wherein it is shown that a dispenser body (Fig.6 ref 85) having a receiver body (Fig.6 ref 65) is formed on the dispenser body and configured to allow optical radiation (Fig.6 ref 19) to propagate therethrough [0119]. Thus, Terada showcases that an alternative form for a dispensing assembly for the removal of a film on a wafer can be provided with a radiation source disposed separately from the dispensing assembly while providing a transparent portion on the dispensing assembly for the passage of optical radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to provide the dispenser assembly with a transparent portion to allow for radiation propagation therethrough, as such appears to be a known alternative to the formation of a radiation source on the dispensing assembly (see Terada e.g., Fig.6). A skilled artisan recognizes that Han envisages the use of the apparatus for removal photoresist films as well (Han [0006 & 0061]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known structural configuration for a dispensing assembly utilized in film removal of a substrate in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Cates (US5328517A).
As to claim 25, Han teaches the system of claim 21, but does not disclose having a body receiver formed within the dispenser body and having the optical radiation source positioned therein. However, the provision of the radiation source in the receiver body merely represents a change in the shape of the dispenser body/body receiver that a skilled artisan would find obvious in view of Cates.
Cates discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract) and showcases a dispenser body (all of Fig.1 but for refs 21/22/24/26/28/30/42/45/97/98; better seen by Fig.12) having a body receiver (Fig.1 ref 12) formed therein and having the optical radiation source (Fig.1 ref 14) positioned within the receiver body. Thus, Cates showcases an alternative configuration for the provision of a radiation source located within a receiving element of a dispensing assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to provide the radiation source within a body receiver, as such is merely a known alternative structural configuration for the placement of the radiation source. Such a modification would merely amount to a slight change in shape, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not anticipate any unexpected results with such a variation in shape (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US20200009621A1) in view of Boyers (US20050178401A1) and Chua (US20140230860A1).
As to claim 41, Modified Han teaches system of claim 40, but does not explicitly showcase the presence of a lid body. Modified Han also does not disclose the dispenser body and radiation source coupled to said lid body such that they can be positioned proximate the wafer and retracted to the lid body. However, such the use of a lid for a processing chamber which utilizes ozone is known in the art, as seen by Boyers. Further, the mounting of an arm to a lid is also known in the art, as seen by Chua.
Boyers discloses an art related apparatus for treatment of a wafer utilizing ozone (abstract), wherein it is known that a processing module (ref 50) for treatment of a wafer is provided with a lid in order to contain any ozone gas present [0161]. Boyers also showcases that such lid is provided with a nozzle (see Figs.5A-6)
Chua discloses an art related treatment apparatus for a semiconductor wafer (see abstract & [0002]), wherein it is shown that a process chamber (e.g., see Fig.13 ref 1302) can be provided with a cover (ref 1304) and said cover is provided with a moveable arm having nozzles (see Figs.3, 5-6, 8, & 13 & [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Han to provide a lid body for the chamber in order to contain any ozone gas that may be present (Boyers [0161]). Further, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide the arm, which carries the dispenser body and radiation source, to the lid as such is a known location for such an arm (Chua Figs. 3, 5-6, 8, & 13 & [0057]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known mounting location for an arm which carries a nozzle and optical radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification would allow for positioning of the nozzle and radiation source proximate the wafer and retract such elements to the lid body.
Claim(s) 1, 21, & 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1).
As to claims 1, 20-21, & 39-40, Cheon discloses an apparatus (abstract) for processing a wafer [0031] comprising: a processing body (Fig.1A ref 100) having a rotatable chuck (Fig.1A ref 110) configured to support and selectively rotate at least one wafer [0031]; at least one processing head (Fig.1A combination of refs 200, 300, 400 & 500) having a dispenser body (Fig.1A combination of refs 200, 300, & 500) in communication with at least one source of photolytic material (see Fig.2B & [0038-0039] and configured to selectively flow the photolytic material onto a surface of the wafer (see e.g., Figs5A-5B & 7); an optical radiation source (Fig.1A ref 300) configured to provide optical radiation to at least of a portion of the wafer having the at least one photolytic material applied thereto (Figs.4, 5B-5C, & 7), the optical radiation is configured to result in the formation of optically-induced radicals having enhanced reactivity with at least one material applied to the wafer [0068-0069]; the processing head is movable in relation to the rotatable chuck (Figs.1B-1C & [0035]); the processing head can be position proximate to the wafer and retracted distally from the wafer (Figs.1B-1C & [0035] see rotary movement of the arm, alternatively one position proximate to the center of the wafer and another distant). Thus, the optically induced radicals have enhanced reactivity with the photoresist material applied to the wafer [0058 & 0068]. Cheon does not disclose the retraction in a vertical direction; however, such a feature would be obvious in view of Han.
Han discloses an art related substrate processing unit (abstract) via ozone [0022 & 0029] and UV light to provide radicals [0013]. Han also indicates that a processing element includes an arm (ref 1420) having both a UV light (ref 1460) and a (nozzle ref 1410). The arm can be lifted and lowered as well as swung [0071] to allow for movement between standby positions and processing positions [0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to allow the arm to be raised and lowered thereby enabling the processing head to be moved between standby and processing positions (Han [0071-0072]), as is known in the art. A skilled artisan recognizes that by allowing the processing head to be placed in a standby position would prevent the processing head from getting in the way until actually required for use, and allow for more space to receive and transfer the substrate wafer.
Claim(s) 4 & 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Funabashi (WO2020153168A1).
As to claims 4 & 26, Cheon teaches the system of claim 1 & 21, but does not disclose the flow of material being turbulent. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Funabashi.
Funabashi discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus utilizing a photolytic material (abstract), wherein turbulent fluid at the substrate increases the amount ozone reaching the substrate and improves removal rate of a resist film [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon provide the material with a turbulent flow in order to improve the removal rate of a resist film (Funabashi [0044]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson (US20030042631A1) and Kim (KR100621788B1).
As to claim 5, Cheon teaches the system of claim 1, but does not disclose the flow of material being laminar. However, such a feature would be obvious in view of Nelson and Kim.
Kim discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract), wherein the use of laminar flow improves uniformity of wafer processing as well as accuracy and precision (lines 457-486 & 526-532)
Nelson discloses a manner of dissolving ozone gas into a liquid (abstract) for the treatment of wafers [0003-0004] wherein it is disclosed that flow of the fluid should be provided under laminar conditions in order to diffuse more easily and maximize the amount of ozone in the fluid [0056 & 0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to create laminar flow of the photolytic material onto the surface of the wafer in order to maximize the amount of ozone in the fluid and allow for better diffusion (Nelson [0056 & 0060]) while also improving uniformity, precision and accuracy (Kim lines 457-486 & 526-532).
Claim(s) 6 & 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Kwon (US20200075355A1).
As to claims 6 and 27, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 & 21, wherein the photolytic material comprises ozonated deionized water [0038 & 0072]. Assuming arguendo that Cheon does not explicitly indicate that the ozone is utilized with deionized water, such a feature is also well-known in the art, as seen Kwon.
Kwon discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein ozonated deionized water is known to be utilized for the removal of a resist and organic residue on the substrate [0088 & 0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize ozonated deionized water for the removal of the resist, as such is known in the art (Kwon [0088 & 0093]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known type of water for and ozone solution when one is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim(s) 7 & 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) and Kwon (US20200075355A1) as applied to claims 6 and 27 above, and further in view of Tai (US20040040934A1) and Shimizu (US6559064B1).
As to claims 7 and 28, Modified Cheon teaches the system of claims 6 and 27, but does not disclose the concentration of the ozonated deionized water. However, such a concentration is well-known in the art for resist removal as seen by Tai and Shimizu.
Tai discloses an art related substrate processing method (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize ozonated DI water with a concentration of 60-115 ppm in order to remove a photoresist [0025].
Shimizu discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known that an ozonated water concentration is 100 ppm for the removal of a photoresist (Col.5 lines 35-45 Col.6 lines 20-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize ozonated deionized water with a concentration between the range of 60 and 115 ppm, as such is known in the art for the removal of a resist (Tai [0025] & Shimizu (Col.5 lines 35-45 Col.6 lines 20-30). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known concentration of ozonated deionized water for the removal of a resist when one is not explicitly disclosed. It is further noted that the photolytic material is not positively recited. Thus, limitations drawn to the photolytic material are also not positively recited.
Claim(s) 8-10 & 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US20170125240A1), Kuzomoto (US6616773B1), and Funabashi (WO2020153168A1).
As to claims 8-10 and 29-31, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, but does not disclose use of ozone gas explicitly. However, use of ozone gas for resist removal operations is known in the art, as seen by Takahashi , Kuzomoto, and Funabashi.
Takahashi discloses an art related substrate processing method for the removal of a resist (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that ozone gas with a concentration of 350g/m3 or 30 g/m3 is utilized to effectively remove a resist from a wafer [0045 & 0055]. Accordingly, Takahashi indicates the usage of a combined ultrapure water (i.e., deionized) and ozone gas. A skilled artisan understands that the ozone presence within the water would also form at least a small amount of ozonated deionized water. Takahashi also suggests that utilizing the known concentration of ozone gas for the removal of a resist allows for the removal of a difficult to remove resist under mild conditions (abstract & [0006]).
Kuzomoto discloses an art related substrate processing method for the removal of a resist (abstract & Col.1 lines 5-10), wherein it is known to utilize wet ozone gas having a concentration of 170 or 200 g/m3 in order to remove a photoresist (Col.10 lines 55-65, Col.12 lines 1-25 line 60 to Col.13 line 25 & Col.14 lines 50-65). The wet ozone gas is produced using ultrapure water (Col.2 lines 15-20, ultrapure water is understood to be deionized). Thus, the usage of wet ozone gas also provides at least some amount (even if infinitesimally small) of ozonated water.
Funabashi discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus utilizing a photolytic material (abstract), wherein the use of two phase gas liquid ozone gas and ozone water us utilized to gradually remove the resist allow for a high removal rate [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize ozone gas in combination with the ozone water for improved resist removal rate (Funabashi [0044]). A skilled artisan would also find it obvious to utilize ozone gas concentrations known for success with resist removal, including 30, 170, 200, or 350 g/m3 as is known in the art (Takahashi [0045 & 0055] also Kuzomoto Col.10 lines 55-65, Col.12 lines 1-25 line 60 to Col.13 line 25 & Col.14 lines 50-65). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known ozone concentration when one is not explicitly disclosed. It is further noted that the photolytic material is not positively recited. Thus, limitations drawn to the photolytic material are also not positively recited.
Claim(s) 11-12 & 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Rahmathullah (US20210106935A1), Nishiguchi (US20050191864A1), and Chang (US20160129484A1).
As to claims 11-12 & 32, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein the UV range can be from 10-280 nm [0046], thereby including the range from 250-275 nm. Assuming arguendo that the range disclosed by Cheon is not sufficiently close to 250-275nm, such ranges for ultraviolet radiation is known in the art as seen by Rahmathullah, Nishiguchi, and Chang.
Rahmathullah discloses manner of treating substrates utilizing UV radiation (abstract), wherein the range of UV wavelength for form radicals is 210-280 nm, such as 254 nm [0157 0169].
Nishiguchi discloses an art related ozone treatment usable for semiconductor photoresists [0002], wherein UV radiation in the range of 200-300 nm produces radicals [0082-0083], and optimally in the range of 250 nm [0104].
Chang discloses an art related semiconductor resist removing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is known to utilize UV radiation in the range of 245-260 nm in order to remove a resist layer [0023 & 0041-0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize UV radiation in a range from 200-300 nm, and more specifically in the vicinity of 250 nm, such as 254nm in order to produce radicals for the removal of a wafer resist (Rahmathullah [0157 & 0169], Nishiguchi [0082-0083 & 0104], and Chang [0023 & 0041-0042]), as desired by Cheon. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known UV radiation range in place of another when alternative range is known for success in producing desired radicals for resist removal.
Claim(s) 13-14 & 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Elliott (US20110061679A1).
As to claims 13-14 & 33, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, but does not disclose the power of the ultraviolet radiation source. However, the use of a 10 watt radiation source which can operate in the UV range is known in the art, as seen by Elliott.
Elliot discloses an art related method for removing resists from wafers (abstract), wherein it is known that a laser which can operate in the range of 150-580nm (includes UV radiation) can be a 10 watt solid state laser [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize a 10W laser which can operate in the UV range as it is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known radiation source in place of another when both sources are capable of producing UV radiation.
Claim(s) 15 & 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Zhang (US20150158116A1) and Chaplick (US20070224768A1).
As to claims 15 & 34, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein a UV radiation source is utilized (abstract) but does not disclose the UV source being a DPSS laser operating at between 250-275nm. However, Cheon does indicate a desire to operate below 280nm [0046]. Further, the use of a DPSS laser for providing UV radiation is known in the art, as seen by Zhang and Chaplick.
Zhang discloses an art related apparatus for processing a substrate (abstract & [0008-0011], wherein a diode pumped solid state laser operating at 6 watts can produce a wavelength of 266 nm [0086-0087].
Chaplick discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract & [0002]), wherein a solid state diode pumped laser is utilized to remove a resist by utilizing a wavelength 266nm [0034 & 0085] in conjunction with ozone [0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize a 266 nm DPSS laser for the removal of the resist, as such a radiation source is known in the art (Chaplick 0034 & 0085] & Zhang [0086-0087]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of ultraviolet radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 16-17, 35-36, & 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Yonetani (JP2004342886A).
As to claims 16-17 & 35-36, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein a UV radiation source is utilized (abstract) but does not disclose the UV source being a laser diode or LED operating at between 250-275nm. However, Cheon does indicate a desire to operate below 280nm [0046]. Further, the use of laser diodes and LEDs for UV radiation is known in the art, as seen by Yonetani.
Yonetani discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein wavelength of 254 nm promote radical produce from ozone [0075-0076]. Yonetani further indicates that known UV radiation sources for producing such a wavelength include a semiconductor laser (i.e., laser diode) or an LED among other options [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize a 254 nm semiconductor laser or LED for improved removal of the resist (Yonetani [0075-0076]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of ultraviolet radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 18 & 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claims 1 & 21 above, and further in view of Moffatt (US20140263180A1) and Chaplick (US20070224768A1).
As to claims 18 & 37, Cheon teaches the system of claims 1 and 21, wherein a UV radiation source is utilized (abstract) but does not disclose the UV source being a fiber laser operating at between 250-275nm. However, Cheon does indicate a desire to operate below 280nm [0046]. Further, the use of a fiber laser for UV radiation is known in the art, as seen by Moffat and Chaplick.
Moffat discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is disclosed that UV radiation may be provided at 266 nm [0019] utilizing radiation sources, such as fiber lasers, solid state laser, laser diodes among others [0017]. Moffat also indicates that fiber lasers are advantageous for their improved brightness [0018].
Chaplick discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract & [0002]), wherein a solid state diode pumped laser is utilized to remove a resist by utilizing a wavelength 266nm [0034 & 0085] in conjunction with ozone [0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to utilize a 266 nm fiber laser for the UV radiation source to remove the resist as it is a known UV radiation source in the art and would provide improved brightness (Moffat [0018]). Since DPSS lasers are known to be utilized with ozone, and fiber lasers a known alternative to a DPSS laser, a skilled artisan would also find the use of fiber laser to be an obvious variant of a UV radiation source. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known type of ultraviolet radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elliott (US20110061679A1), Chaplick (US20070224768A1), and Terada (US20040197433A1).
As to claim 19, Cheon teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the moveable processing head having the radiation source can read on a scan head. However, assuming arguendo that a scan head and the processing head are distinct and separate elements, the following alternative rejection is provided. Although Cheon does not disclose the presence of a scan head, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that such a feature is merely an alternative configuration when compared to the configuration of Cheon where the radiation source is provided on the dispenser assembly, as seen by Elliott, Chaplick, and Terada.
Elliot discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract), wherein it can be seen that a scan head (Fig.7 ref 715) can be utilized in order to provide radiation to a wafer [0084-0085] for the removal of a resist (abstract).
Chaplick discloses an art related wafer processing apparatus (abstract & [0002]), wherein a scan head can be utilized in order to supply radiation to a wafer surface [0091-0093] in order to remove a resist [0085].
Terada discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus for removing a film (abstract), wherein it is shown that a dispenser body (Fig.6 ref 85) can be separate from a radiation source (Fig.5 ref 63) for supplying radiation to a wafer to remove a resist [0004 & 01320]. Thus, Terada showcases that an alternative form for a dispensing assembly for the removal of a film on a wafer can be provided with a radiation source disposed separately from the dispensing assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to provide the radiation source as a separate scan head, as such a feature is known in the art (Elliott Fig.7, Chaplick Fig.7A, and Terada Figs.5-6) for the supplying of radiation to a wafer surface. Further, Cheon also appears to indicate that a radiation source can be provided separately from a dispensing element (see Fig.8A). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would recognize the provision of a scan head to be a mere alternative to the providing of a radiation source and dispenser on the same head. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known structural configuration for a dispensing assembly utilized in film removal of a substrate in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Terada (US20040197433A1).
As to claim 24, Cheon teaches the system of claim 21, but does not disclose the presence of a body receiver through which optical radiation propagates. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by Terada.
Terada discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus for removing a film (abstract), wherein it is shown that a dispenser body (Fig.6 ref 85) having a receiver body (Fig.6 ref 65) is formed on the dispenser body and configured to allow optical radiation (Fig.6 ref 19) to propagate therethrough [0119]. Thus, Terada showcases that an alternative form for a dispensing assembly for the removal of a film on a wafer can be provided with a radiation source disposed separately from the dispensing assembly while providing a transparent portion on the dispensing assembly for the passage of optical radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to provide the dispenser assembly with a transparent portion to allow for radiation propagation therethrough, as such appears to be a known alternative to the formation of a radiation source on the dispensing assembly (see Terada e.g., Fig.6). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known structural configuration for a dispensing assembly utilized in film removal of a substrate in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Cates (US5328517A).
As to claim 25, Cheon teaches the system of claim 21, having a body receiver (Fig.1A ref 520) formed within the dispenser body and having the optical radiation source positioned therein (see Fig.1A, 3B-3C, & 5A). Assuming arguendo that the radiation source is not located in the receiver body, but rather below it, the following alternative rejection is provided. The provision of the radiation source in the receiver body merely represents a change in the shape of the dispenser body/body receiver that a skilled artisan would find obvious in view of Cates.
Cates discloses an art related substrate processing apparatus (abstract) and showcases a dispenser body (all of Fig.1 but for refs 21/22/24/26/28/30/42/45/97/98; better seen by Fig.12) having a body receiver (Fig.1 ref 12) formed therein and having the optical radiation source (Fig.1 ref 14) positioned within the receiver body. Thus, Cates showcases an alternative configuration for the provision of a radiation source located within a receiving element of a dispensing assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to provide the radiation source within a body receiver, as such is merely a known alternative structural configuration for the placement of the radiation source. Such a modification would merely amount to a slight change in shape, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not anticipate any unexpected results with such a variation in shape (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheon (US20200373174A1) in view of Han (US20200009621A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Boyers (US20050178401A1) and Chua (US20140230860A1).
As to claim 41, Modified Cheon teaches system of claim 40, but does not explicitly showcase the presence of a lid body. Modified Cheon also does not disclose the dispenser body and radiation source coupled to said lid body such that they can be positioned proximate the wafer and retracted to the lid body. However, such the use of a lid for a processing chamber which utilizes ozone is known in the art, as seen by Boyers. Further, the mounting of an arm to a lid is also known in the art, as seen by Chua.
Boyers discloses an art related apparatus for treatment of a wafer utilizing ozone (abstract), wherein it is known that a processing module (ref 50) for treatment of a wafer is provided with a lid in order to contain any ozone gas present [0161]. Boyers also showcases that such lid is provided with a nozzle (see Figs.5A-6)
Chua discloses an art related treatment apparatus for a semiconductor wafer (see abstract & [0002]), wherein it is shown that a process chamber (e.g., see Fig.13 ref 1302) can be provided with a cover (ref 1304) and said cover is provided with a moveable arm having nozzles (see Figs.3, 5-6, 8, & 13 & [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Cheon to provide a lid body for the chamber in order to contain any ozone gas that may be present (Boyers [0161]). Further, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide the arm, which carries the dispenser body and radiation source, to the lid as such is a known location for such an arm (Chua Figs. 3, 5-6, 8, & 13 & [0057]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known mounting location for an arm which carries a nozzle and optical radiation source in place of another with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification would allow for positioning of the nozzle and radiation source proximate the wafer and retract such elements to the lid body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711